对一下答案，更好的规划接下来的学习和安排。
整体分析
阅读难度：4/5
语法难度：2.5/5
数学难度：2/5
写作话题难度：3/5
阅读错1道390，2道380
语法错1道370，2道350
数学错1道770，2道750
阅读答案
1-10：CDABC CCABD
11-20: BADCA BBDAA
21-30: ADBCD CAAAC
31-40: ABCBC DADAD
41-52: CBDAC ACBAC CA
第一篇
小说
文章作者：Anita Desai文章选自：The Artist ’s Life
文章大纲：主人公是一名叫Polly的小女孩。从小被送去画画的她喜欢画紫色的波点花纹，而这个花纹正好和老师的领带上的一样，所以老师非常能够理解她。但是当Polly把画拿回家给父母看时，却得不到他们的认同，这让她变得忧郁。文章话题：女性成长代沟话题。
第二篇
科学
文章作者：Colleen Haight文章标题：The Problem with Fair Trade Coffee
文章大纲：自由贸易咖啡产业对于不发达的国家一直有很重要的角色，一个世界咖啡组织设定了一个基准价格，却导致了咖啡质量的下降。同时用了一个关于农民种植了两种咖啡豆，高于基准价格的在咖啡组织内售卖，低于基准价格的在组织内售卖，导致好的咖啡豆越来越好而差的咖啡豆越来越差的例子来支撑观点。
第三篇
科学
文章作者：Paul B Wgnall文章标题：The Worst of Times：How Life on Earth Survived Eighty Million Years of Extinctions
文章大纲：一开始强调了某种化石发现的重要性，然后通过一位教授的研究表明三叠纪生物的大灭绝导致了物种多样性的急剧下降。但是，另外两名研究人员发现多样性在混合的动物群体里相对更高。最后结论表明三叠纪中出现了两次物种灭绝和一次物种恢复，同时从长远角度来看，多样性的减少反而显示了生物多样性的稳定。
第四篇
双篇历史
-1-文章作者：CAROLINE H. DALL文章标题：The College, the Market, and the Court; Or Woman's Relation to Education, Labor, and Law
-2-文章标题：Woman Suffrage -Cui Bono
文章大纲：双篇对比，第一篇强调女性的真正需求是要政府给予实际的公民权利而不是抽象概念上的，女性需要投票权。虽然女性有了投票权，但是作者要求投票权不应该建立于财富水平而应该是教育水平。提出了两个原因论证，第一是女性需要有能力保护自己，第二个是男女生来平等。同时提议了三条法律，反欺诈，反暴力和反对过分激进的性别主义。
第二篇中提到，女性虽然对于他们自身权利的现状是不满的，但是大多数女性对于投票权的冷漠态度也是一种反抗形式，是她们对现状不满的证据。作者认为，女性最大的弱点在于善良和仁慈，所以总是会去给予一些错误的事情原谅。
第五篇
科学
文章作者：Seth S Horowitz文章标题：The Universal Sense: How Hearing Shapes the Mind
文章大纲：科学界在以前一致认为蝌蚪的听力差。但是作者发现以前的实验都是在水里进行的，导致环境对蝌蚪产生了干扰，所以他认为应该在和蝌蚪生活环境相近的自然环境里进行试验。最后，他的实验结果表明其实蝌蚪的听力非常好。
语法答案
1-11: ADDCD BDBAC B
12-22: DDCDA BCAAB C
23-33: DBBCD DBBAC D
34-44: CCBAA BDDCA A
第一篇：悠悠球
Pedro Flore玩的悠悠球因为样式和普通的不一样引起了很多人的围观，这让他发现了商机，注册了自己的商标，量产悠悠球，让其风靡一时。在这时，Flore让一个叫Duncan的人接手了他的生意，自己去世界各地宣传悠悠球。
第二篇：生态旅游
用了两个例子，第一个讲了一个建议人怎么保护环境的在线学习程序，第二个讲述了阿拉斯加的生态旅游管理。
第三篇：深海恒温鱼类
讲述了opah这种恒温鱼类动物，通过两种方式调节体温：快速扇动侧鳍和腮部位靠在一起的进出血管。
第四篇：加速播放音频
因为人们的生活节奏加快了，想要快速读完某些书所以加速播放音频的软件变得很流行。但其实这种方式的弊端很多，首先会让被听的故事失去节奏和必要的有意义的停顿，同时不利于听者把握故事的主线，分清主次情节。
数学答案
Section 3:
1-10：AACCB BDBAD 11-15: BCADA
16: 1/4 17: 4 18: 3 19:100 20: 5
Section 4:
1-10: CABDA BBACD 11-20: CCBAB CDACC
21-30: CDABD BBDAB
31: 150 32: 11 33: 4 34: 6 35: 15.5 36: 65 37: 1.5 38: 18
基本考点
代数部分：解方程，一次函数斜率，二次函数里二次项系数的意义，指数函数考察识别图表中的数字变化是linear还是exponential。几何部分：圆的方程。统计部分：ratio，probability，sample selection，mean，median，range。
写作原文
写作文章选自2013/09/04的TIMES杂志
文章标题：Do Women Really Want Equality?
原文如下：
The fall season in gender-gap news has started early and with a bang. A study released yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that male doctors earn over 25% more than female doctors. Why am I not surprised? There is a constant stream of stories showing gender disparities like this: that Obama gave only 35% of Cabinet-level posts to women, that men still write 87% of Wikipedia entries, that they are approximately 80% of local news-television and radio managers, and over 75% of philosophers.
After decades of antidiscrimination laws, diversity initiatives and feminist advocacy, such data leads to an uncomfortable question: Do women actually want equality? The answer seems transparently, blindingly, obvious. Do women want to breathe fresh air? Do they want to avoid rattlesnakes and fatal heart attacks?
But from another perspective, the answer is anything but clear. In fact, there’s good reason to think that women don’t want the sort of equality envisioned by government bureaucrats, academics and many feminist advocates, one imagined strictly by the numbers with the goal of a 50-50 breakdown of men and women in C-suites, law-school dean offices, editorial boards and computer-science departments; equal earnings, equal work hours, equal assets, equal time changing diapers and doing the laundry. “A truly equal world,” Sheryl Sandberg wrote in Lean In, which is still on the best-seller lists months after its spring publication, “would be one where women ran half our countries and companies and men ran half our homes.” It’s a vision of progress that can only be calculated through the spreadsheets of labor economists, demographers and activist groups.
It would be silly to deny that equality-by-the-numbers researchers can deliver figures that could alarm even an Ann Romney. There’s the puny 4.2% of female Fortune 500 CEOs, the mere 23.7% of female state legislators, the paltry 19% of women in Congress. But while “numbers don’t lie,” they can create mirages that convince us we see something we don’t. Take, for example, the JAMA study about the pay gap between male and female doctors. The study seems to capture yet another example of discrimination against women. But because it fails to consider differences in medical specialty or type of workplace, that appearance may well be an illusion. Surgeons and cardiologists, who have long been in the ranks of the top-earning specialties, remain predominantly male. Meanwhile, as women flooded the profession, they disproportionately chose to become psychiatrists and pediatricians, specialties that have always been among the least lucrative.
There are reasons for this particular wage gap that are gender-blind. Surgeons need more years of training, perform riskier work (at least that’s how malpractice insurers see it) and put in more unpredictable hours. Unsurprisingly, according to surveys, women who become doctors approach their work differently than men. They spend more time with each patient; when choosing jobs, they are far more likely to cite time for family and flexible hours as “very important” and to prefer limited management responsibilities. Male doctors, on the other hand, are more likely to think about career advancement and income potential.
This hints at the problem with the equality-by-the-numbers approach: it presumes women want absolute parity in all things measurable, and that the average woman wants to work as many hours as the average man, that they want to be CEOs, heads of state, surgeons and Cabinet heads just as much as men do. But a consistent majority of women, including those working full time, say they would prefer to work part time or not at all; among men, the number is 19%. And they’re not just talking; in actual practice, 27% of working women are on the job only part time, compared with 11% of men.
Now, a lot of people might say that American women are stymied from pursuing their ambitions because of our miserly maternity leave, day care and workplace-flexibility policies. But even women in the world’s most family-friendly countries show little interest in the equality-by-the-numbers ideal. In Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland, according to the OECD, women still work fewer hours and earn less money than men; they also remain a rare sight in executive offices, computer-science classrooms and, though the OECD doesn’t say it I’m willing to bet, philosophy conferences. Sweden, the gold standard of gender equality in many minds, has one of the highest percentages of women working part time anywhere in the world. Equality-by-numbers advocates should be thinking about women’s progress in terms of what women show that they want, not what the spreadsheets say they should want.
-
有疑问在线咨询老师
咨询时间:9:00-23:00
非咨询时间也可留言 -
400-618-0271
咨询时间:
9:00-23:00
定制备考方案
